The Governmental Advisory Committee has contacted each applicant directly with an Early Warning notice which generally asks for further information or requests clarification, but in some cases advises withdrawal of an application.

Maintaining a healthy online business ecosystem is a big consideration, so a number of the notices deal with terms relating to regulated market sectors (.finance, .casino, and .dental) and warn applicants that they must have safeguards in place to mitigate potential misuse and minimise the likelihood of harm to consumers.

More generic terms such as .skin (L'Oreal's application), .baby (from Johnson & Johnson Services Inc), and .antivirus (Symantec Corporation) are coming under scrutiny for their anti-competitive potential. As a result all three companies have both been asked to "specify transparent criteria for third party access to the TLD."

The suffixes .wtf, .fail and .sucks have also received warnings for having an "overtly negative or critical connotation" without offering sufficient mechanisms to limit the need for businesses to immediately engage in defensive domain registrations to protect their brands.

Other warnings of note include those dealing with .bible, .islam, and .ooo. Religious terms are being queried regarding their capacity to fairly represent the large communities they reference and to prevent abuses of the domain, particularly where a private company rather than a not-for-profit or governmental organization has made the application. The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

A number of the applications have been advised to withdraw immediately, particularly those involving the registration of country and territory names such as .patagonia and .africa. Under the current TLD registration guidelines, country and territory names are reserved and can only be registered with the express agreement of the relevant governments and authorities.

The warnings do not constitute formal judgements but flag up potential issues and information gaps to both applicants and to the organisation tasked with managing domain names, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). New TLDs which are given ICANN's approval are expected to go live from 2013.

Trademark law doesn't allow companies or non-profit groups to control generic words in print or on TV. We shouldn't give those same groups defacto control over those words online by letting them control a generic top-level domain.

Someone remind me again what benefit this is supposed to bring anyone?

Well, the benefits for are pretty obvious for those who are going to sell the domain names for these new TLDs, especially to companies that will be convinced that they need to "protect their brands". For everyone else, I'm as lost as you.

Someone remind me again what benefit this is supposed to bring anyone?

I think here it's saving businesses the money they would otherwise needs to spend so that nobody buys e.g. www.alexr.sucks , which I'm pretty sure you'd agree you wouldn't want someone else to do. I have no idea if you are a brand or have one, but if you were a big business surely you'd want either an assurance that none of the competition could do this to you, or you'd have to buy the TLD yourself

the article wrote:

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

Ah the Internet, my first port of call in a life-threatening situation [shake head]

There are 1931 gTLD applicants and at 185k each, that's over $350M. Then ICANN gets $25k/year for approved domains. So, assuming at least another 100 new gTLDs that another $2.5M/year income. Nice chunk of change for ICANN

Isn't this already covered by defamation laws? Granted, going through the justice system is an avenue that private individuals or small companies may find prohibitively expensive, but that's another matter. It seems a shame to limit ourselves to boring TLDs.

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

Ah the Internet, my first port of call in a life-threatening situation [shake head]

i can't envision that scenario as well.

life threatening situation plus going to www.cocacola.ooo* and being stymied that you didn't reach the help you wanted.

I like being able to differentiate between Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, for example. But that's because the site messes up, and I end up redirecting internally. When you have http: // www . sitename . org and http: // www . sitename . net it's lame that you can go to the wrong site.

I'm not really saying they shouldn't exist, but from a user perspective, they're unnecessary when they do work, and confusing when they don't.

I should really apply for the TLD ".con" and rake in money for redirecting Amazon.con to Amazon.com.

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

Yes, because in an emergency, I browse to a random website that looks like the emergency phone number.

And everyone will just continue to use the .com and .net domains for brands and all that this defensive purchasing of alternate domains achieves is more money in ICANN's kitty.

Quote:

The suffixes .wtf, .fail and .sucks have also received warnings for having an "overtly negative or critical connotation" without offering sufficient mechanisms to limit the need for businesses to immediately engage in defensive domain registrations to protect their brands.

These are precisely the types of domains that brands should not be allowed to purchase and squat on. Instead, ICANN seems to creating regulation that limits the public's options when criticizing brands. If someone purchases haliburton.sucks and posts false information on it, the lawyers can go after the site operator for libel. Hell, lawyers can go after the site operator even if everything on the (hypothetical) site is true.

.skin!? Did L'Oreal really not foresee the potential porn connotations with that TLD?

If L'Oreal controls the .skin domain, why would they need to worry about the potential porn connotations? It's not like they're applying to have it created with no control as to what will happen to it.

.skin!? Did L'Oreal really not foresee the potential porn connotations with that TLD?

If L'Oreal controls the .skin domain, why would they need to worry about the potential porn connotations? It's not like they're applying to have it created with no control as to what will happen to it.

Ah, maybe that is what I misunderstood. I thought that ICANN would be in control and allow registrations of other addresses and that L'Oreal just wanted to use that name.

So, does that mean they are actually considering allowing corporations to be in control of TLD registrations? That seems like a REALLY bad idea.

The suffixes .wtf, .fail and .sucks have also received warnings for having an "overtly negative or critical connotation" without offering sufficient mechanisms to limit the need for businesses to immediately engage in defensive domain registrations to protect their brands.

Isn't this already covered by defamation laws? Granted, going through the justice system is an avenue that private individuals or small companies may find prohibitively expensive, but that's another matter. It seems a shame to limit ourselves to boring TLDs.

Who's defamation laws? The owner of the domain, the victim, the server location, USA (if it does not overlap with any of the above)? That is the main issue with gTLDs, there are no clear jurisdiction on them.

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

Yes, because in an emergency, I browse to a random website that looks like the emergency phone number.

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

Yes, because in an emergency, I browse to a random website that looks like the emergency phone number.

I seem to recall a RFC regarding using DNS as a phone directory of sorts, allowing individuals and companies to have multiple contact data entries under a single "domain".

Anyone want to chip in on registering .icannisagreedybunchofassholes ?

You should totally start a Kickstarter for that. The only question is, what could be done if the campaign went way over the top? What kind of "stretch" goal would go with Kickstarting an .asshole domain?

The .ooo suffix has been compared with Australia's "visually similar" triple zero emergency phone number and flagged because of "a risk that this proposed TLD could result in confusion for some consumers in life-threatening situations."

Yes, because in an emergency, I browse to a random website that looks like the emergency phone number.

What's wrong with being offensive? I, for one, can appreciate sarcasm, cynicism, pessimism, and even hateful rhetoric. Whether someone makes a comment in a joking manner, or a manner intended to be hurtful, it is really none of our business. If we choose to take it personally, that is our own fault, not theirs. I swear, some people act like it is everyone else's responsibility to control their tongue so that nobody is offended. Guess what: this is real life. People are going to say things that aren't pretty, and they shouldn't be censored for doing so. We can rebuke them, make an example of them, and teach about why what they did was wrong. If you cover up the truth, our history, we would be doomed to repeat it otherwise. I'm of the opinion that the Freedom of Speech is worth defending.

This all seems like a great way to further devalue TLDs, misdirect and scam. They don't appear to offer benefit to the many (most users of the net) but rather to further parcel it up for the few (business, special interests).

Most of the others look like the internet equivalent of Vanity Plates, whilst others seek to gain validity for some really wacky world views* that should have no place in the modern world.

I sincerely hope all of the proposed new TLDs get kicked out.

*Not singled out any one of them, I mean all of them. And I wouldn't want to see .athiest either.

I see so many problems with this new system that I don't even know where to begin. The potential for consumer confusion is enormous. I predict a huge increase in the volume and type of online scams in the near future.